Posts Tagged ‘dodsworth’

For 5 years, Treasury Board Secretariat has relied on the fallacy that military members do not speak out. That was a bad call.

Canadian Armed Forces are trained to do the right thing, never pass a fault, and to stand up for those who cannot. That is what a five year battle has become for countless military families.

Personally, the fight has cost me all, and there are no assurances that I will be successful, however I have had an impact. No more to troops have to suffer, applications are now being forwarded to TBS (without the need for a grievance), the word is out that this branch of our own government cannot count on the silence of the troops and Treasury Board Secretariat has been exposed of having a blanket policy denying 100% of the applications which were supposed to help military families when relocating from depressed markets.

In January, I take the Crown to federal court again. The last appearance, we won. Hands down, caught the TBS cheating and yet, they did not pay. Now, we have a new hired gun. Take a moment and look at our side of the story in our Argument, and share your opinion. Should any “public servant”, employee, military member have to fight this hard for their entitlements, or to protect their family? Should any one have to re-fight in court to have it settled?

On January 19th, follow me once more down the rabbit hole and stare into the faces of our Government who decry…

“we do not owe our soldiers a duty of care”

in an attempt of getting out of following their own reimbursement policy.

Once again, after winning in Federal Court, our battle has been extended by Treasury Board Secretariat. We find ourselves having to take TBS back into Federal Court to finalize our claim for Home Equity Assistance. Our family has carried this load for 5 years now, won our grievances and won in federal court, but TBS continues to SPEND YOUR TAX DOLLARS denying our entitlements.

The only way we can get accountability is by voting, and taking them to court.

We are once again asking for financial support to assist with this legal battle, so that the TBS will be held accountable to follow their own policies, instead of getting away with the use of Blanket Denials for hundreds of Canadian Military families. Details available at www.healoss.wordpress.com

The federal government has filed a motion to strike down a proposed class action lawsuit by a 33-year veteran of the Armed Forces who lost $72,000 on the sale of his house when he was posted to another base.

Documents filed in Federal Court indicate the Justice Department wants the matter thrown out before it is certified, arguing it is destined to fail, amounts to a criticism of government policy and is better suited to a judicial review.

“It challenges an economic policy decision of government to limit the amount of reimbursement paid to members who sell their private homes at a loss,” states the 24-page memorandum filed last month.

RELATED STORIES

“The claim has no reasonable prospect of success and should be struck.”

A hearing date has not been set for the matter.

The original suit was filed in September 2014 by master warrant officer Neil Dodsworth, who took a loss on the sale of his home near Edmonton when he was posted to Kingston, Ont., in 2009.

A member can receive 100 per cent compensation of their loss through the home-equity assistance program if they sell their home in a housing market that is deemed by the Treasury Board to be depressed.

But the board disputes what is constitutes a depressed market in Canada. Dodsworth says it also lumps smaller communities into larger centres, like Edmonton, where the housing market is not considered to be depressed.

Dodsworth filed for compensation for the entire amount that he lost, but was told he would only receive $15,000 since his home in Morinville, about 35 kilometres outside Edmonton, was not in a depressed market.

The policy states that a depressed market is one that has seen real estate values drop by 20 per cent or more. Dodsworth argued that the value of his home went down 29 per cent over two years.

He says in the statement that he lost all the equity in his home, took out a $21,000 bank loan to cover part of his mortgage and volunteered for a seven-month tour in Afghanistan to earn more money.

Heather Domereckyj, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Board, said in an email that she could not comment since the matter is before the courts.

Dan Wallace, Dodsworth’s lawyer, said his client was dismayed with the motion to dismiss the case.

“He’s disappointed,” Wallace said Thursday. “I told him when we started that this could be expected. He knew this was going to take a long time.”

The case is similar to another one involving Maj. Marcus Brauer, who received $15,000 for a $88,000 loss he took on the sale of his house in Alberta.

Brauer launched a judicial review, which led a Federal Court judge to order the Treasury Board to review its decision.

I have been away from the computer lately, as I have had to change jobs after 26 years. Seems that a few supervisors wanted to peek into my medical records, and they got caught. My first day back at work and I got my posting message. I could not make this stuff up!

The following link provides the current details on the Government of Canada’s latest attempt to delay and deny the relocation entitlements ordered by the Federal Court of Canada.

I encourage all military families to have a look at the lengths that the government is going through to deny us entitlements on relocations. $73,000 equity loss, over $250,000 in losses, health, career, QOL etc.

Comments welcomed. Assessments of the Government’s motion to strike are also welcomed by the layperson, barrack room lawyer and Barrister alike.

If you think you are affected, you may contact the legal team directly at: HEAClassaction@mcinnescooper.com

A friend noted that the CBI (Compensation and Benefit Instructions) have been quietly amended with regards to the Home Equity Assistance. What do you think? Has anyone seen a change in the CFIRP policy or policy clarification notices?

208.97(1) (Definitions) The definitions in this paragraph apply in this instruction.

adjusted purchase price

means, in respect of a principal residence, the price paid for the principal residence plus the value, as determined on the basis of actual costs for materials and professional labour, of any eligible home improvements determined under paragraph (6).

current market value

means, in respect of a principal residence, the value at the time of sale as determined by the Chief of the Defence Staff based on three appraisals.

eligible home improvements

include

the addition of a garage;

the addition of perimeter fencing;

the addition of a deck or patio;

the installation or paving of a driveway;

necessary basic landscaping other than decorative;

the finishing of a basement in a manner which adds living space to the residence; and

the permanent addition of a bedroom or other living space.

principal residence

means a principal residence as defined in paragraph (1) of CBI 208.96 – Acquisition and Disposal of Residential Accommodation.

sale price

means, in respect of a principal residence, the final selling price.

208.97(2) (Application) This instruction applies in respect of the sale of a principal residence by an officer or non-commissioned member where, as determined by the Chief of the Defence Staff, the housing prices at the member’s place of duty have decreased by 10% or more between the date of purchase and the date of sale of the principal residence.

208.97(3) (Sale price lower than adjusted purchase price) An officer or non-commissioned member who is moved at public expense other than locally and sells a principal residence shall be reimbursed 90% of the difference between the sale price and the adjusted purchase price, when the sale price is lower than the adjusted purchase price.

208.97(4) (Sale price lower than current market value) Despite paragraph (3), when the sale price is also lower than the current market value, the Chief of the Defence Staff may limit reimbursement to 90% of the difference between the current market value and the adjusted purchase price.

208.97(5) (Appraisal) For the purpose of this instruction, the current market value and the value of eligible home improvements shall be determined on the basis of appraisals by licensed property appraisers appointed by the Chief of the Defence Staff.

208.97(6) (Under financial hardship) Despite paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the Chief of the Defence Staff may approve reimbursement to an officer or non-commissioned member in any case that does not meet the criteria of this instruction when the Chief of the Defence Staff considers that the member would suffer undue financial hardship.

As posting season is upon us, I have had multiple requests from military members who are expecting to loose a great deal of equity on their home sale. Luckily, the CAF has the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Policy which

Each request can cost $5, so include a cheque (usually reimbursed if you are requesting information about you only).

What to expect: I have experienced that each department will reveal different information to you. Often the ATI officer will call and ask to reword the request to save work/time, stand your ground and ensure you are NOT watering down your request. If you encounter long delays there is an office which can help resolve. For example, DND and TBS both withheld information from me using various excuses. Also information was blacked out or “under review” by another department, and never actioned. With the assistance of the Office of the Information Commissioner you can get help with some of these roadblocks.

So, you need information about your last relocation as you are expecting to take a large (over $15,000 hit) on your equity? Here are some sample ATI’s for your use as you see fit:

“All memoranda, reports, emails, briefing notes, minutes of meetings held within DND and any letters to or from Treasury Board for the period 1 January 2009 to 5 August 2012 on the subject of 100% Home Equity Assistance, depressed markets or policy clarification as it applies to Edmonton and surrounding communities (e.g. Bon Accord, Morinville, St Albert).
DGCB definition of ‘community’ as it applies to the relocation policy used within IRP (e.g. E-mail Thursday, 5, July, 2012 09:43 AM LCol Gash-LCol Raney). Any communications between DCBA/DGCB and TBS demonstrating an effort to resolve the issue of defining “community” as it applies to the CF IRP. Spreadsheet, printout or any document that would show the number of claims submitted, and approved under the Home Equity Assistance (100%) between 1 January 2009 and 5 August 2012″.

“Between 2006 and Aug 2012, all memos, reports, emails, briefing notes, minutes, internal and external correspondence regarding Home Equity Assistance, Bon Accord, {Major Brauer}, and the definition of ‘community’ as it applies to relocation policy. Any documentation on depressed markets, and policy clarification of Home Equity Assistance administration of IRP”.

Drop a line if anyone needs further guidance/assistance. Do note that there are discussions that ATI requests may increase from $5 to $250 each. I myself have been advised that my last ATI would cost hundreds/thousands – but this is my information and I have a right to access it. Without having access to our own personal information, I would not have discovered that we were being cheated out of our entitlements!

Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and pertains to the proposed increased user fees for Access to Information requests.

Last Thursday, Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault testified before the House of Commons Access to Information and Ethics Committee on the funding crisis facing her office. In response, a number of Conservative Members of Parliament proposed that the solution to the office’s lack of funding would be to increase the $5 user fee charged for ATIP requests. Erin O’Toole, Member of Parliament for Durham, recommended that the government increase the fees charged to ordinary Canadians from $5 to $25 for each request, and to $200 per request from businesses, including commercial news organizations. This would mean that Canadians would be paying $25 to learn whether Mr. O’Toole’s predecessor had charged $16 for a glass of orange juice.

The Information Commissioner made it clear that increasing the cost of ATIP user fees was not, in her opinion, a good idea. She said:

. . . it is not my office that is in a crisis, it is the fact that Canadians’ right to access government information is in jeopardy, that is the real issue . . .

When your Prime Minister came to power in 2006, he promised to usher in a new era of openness and accountability. His exact words were:

We promised to stand up for accountability and to change the way government works.

Can you explain why the government is even considering charging Canadians more for information which by law belongs to them? If the government does increase user fees, does this not negate completely the government’s claim to be more open and transparent and accountable than its predecessors?”

A five year battle is playing out in the Canadian court system. Systematically denied relocation entitlements have left military families destroyed, homeless and bankrupt. The Treasury Board of Canada has already been caught in Federal Court however they continue to attempt to engineer a solution which will save a few bucks, and prevent soldiers from getting their entitlements. The entire case can be found here: http://www.courts.ns.ca/Supreme_Court/documents/Statementofclaim.pdf

HEA Timeline Presentation
This presentation is made to assist with the sharing of information on the systemic denial of Home Equity Assistance by Treasury Board Secretariat

Access to Information Requests

A201000410
Correspondence sent by R. Singh regarding the Integrated Relocation Program and all correspondence between R. Singh and his superior officers, his deputy minister and others for the period of June 1, 2008 to October 29, 2010.

A201101059
All documents relating to the Litigation Management Unit that have been received or sent by Michelle d’Auray, Daphne Meredith, Andrew Saxton or Tony Clement from June 1, 2011 to March 15, 2012.

A-2010-01371
Original and complete text used by CDS to render his decision on Grievance Case Summary 2010-043 dated 16 Sept 2010.

A201100175
Background briefing notes prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat for the new President, the Honorable Tony Clement.

A201000690
Copy of the current contract for relocation services between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Brookfield Global Relocation Services and Treasury Board Secretariat.

A-2010-00699
Communications from TBS re: applications for Home Equity Assistance in a depressed market (2007-2010). Number of CF members who have applied for + granted 100% HEA during this time. Any policy clarification or research studies on depressed markets.

A201000469
Copy of the following documents: the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act; Debt Write Off Regulations; Treasury Board Policy on Claims and Ex-Gratia payments; and the Treasury Board Risk Management Policy.

A201000295
Copies of 47 briefing notes on various issues sent to the President of the Treasury Board.

ATI A-2012-00942
All memos, reports, emails, briefing notes, minutes of meetings held within DND and any letters to or from TBS between 1 Jan 09-5 Aug 12 on the subject of 100% HEA, depressed markets or policy…

Relocation funds reported to be shifted to Mental Health
additional funds for mental health were transferred from the military relocation envelope shows the government is making up a “patchwork” strategy on the fly, he said, calling MacKay’s announcement “pre-emptive damage control.”

Definition of Community
The following is a description of one of the communities in question (Bon Accord, Alberta) which is, in accordance with Federal, legal and logical definitions, a community as required in the CFIRP HEA policy. This information was provided to TBS as part o

Donations
Although we won in Federal Court, the Treasury Board continues to deny payment. Please support our second attempt at justice.

Legislation

Bill C-15
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act-An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

PC Number: 2012-0861
PC Number: 2012-0861: His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board and the Minister of National Defence, makes the annexed Canadian Forces Grievance Process Ex Gratia Payments Order.

Lamer Report
The First Independent Review by the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer P.C., C.C., C.D. of the provisions and operation of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the National Defence Act. “Those responsible for organizing and administrating Canada’s military justice sy

Constitution Act
Constitution Act: Legal Rights Marginal note:Life, liberty and security of person 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justic

It's Your Move (Brookfield Global Relocation Services) 2010-11
These exerpts show the definition of community as communicated to the Canadian Forces, and to the Third Party Contractors (i.e. realtors who conduct the depressed market ananlysis of the community. Surely, this substantiates the term community as a town.

PERSPECTIVES from the Canadian Forces Grievance Board-May 2011
This decision is said to be based on an email notification provided by a staff officer at TB in May 2009 to the effect that there are no “depressed markets” in Canada. It was later explained to the Board that the matter had not been pursued “given o

Canadian Forces Grievance Board 2012 Annual Report
The Board firmly believes that something must be done to assist Canadian Forces members who have been affected by the Home Equity Assistance policy. The Board has suggested to the Chief of the Defence Staff that this significant issue requires a considere

Case # 2012-140
the CDS agreed with the Board that the situation incurred by CF members with the application of the current Home Equity Assistance (HEA) policy is egregious. Therefore, the CDS confirmed the Board’s systemic recommendation submitted in previous files o